G.R. No. 207516, June 19, 2017
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Ambrosio Ohayas, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ambrosio Ohayas was charged with Murder for the killing of Armando Kyamko, Jr. on May 31, 1996, in Pinamungajan, Cebu. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Sany Candelasa and Lou Managaytay, who testified that at around 8:00 p.m., while they and the victim were conversing under a tree, they saw Ohayas and three companions approach. Ohayas was carrying a shotgun. Without any warning, and from a distance of about seven arm’s lengths, Ohayas shot Armando Jr., hitting him in the abdomen. Ohayas fired additional shots, injuring Sany. The victim died that same night. Dr. Jesus Cerna’s necropsy report confirmed the cause of death as shock secondary to shotgun wounds.
The defense presented a different account. Ohayas claimed he was fishing at sea during the incident and only heard gunshots. He alleged that a certain Eddie Yaguno was the actual killer and that he fled afterward due to police advice and fear of retaliation from the victim’s family. He was apprehended three years later.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction of accused-appellant Ambrosio Ohayas for the crime of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages awarded. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that the credibility of the prosecution eyewitnesses remained intact. The witnesses positively identified Ohayas as the shooter, and their testimonies were consistent on material points, establishing the elements of Murder: that a person was killed, that the accused killed him, and that the killing was attended by treachery. The sudden and unexpected attack with a shotgun, without any provocation or opportunity for the victim to defend himself, clearly constituted treachery, qualifying the homicide as murder.
The Court found the defense of denial and alibi weak and unsubstantiated. Flight is an indication of guilt, and Ohayas’s evasion for three years after the incident reinforced the conclusion of his culpability. The alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies pertained to minor details and did not affect their core narrative. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. Accordingly, the Court modified the damages, ordering Ohayas to pay the victim’s heirs PhP75,000 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, plus PhP50,000 as temperate damages, all with 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid.